Bending the Tide: Why people accept new rules after they're enforced
Implementation postponement for smoking restriction or speed limitations: Denied initial implementation indicates potential future enaction of laws - Rules Disregard: Failure to Adhere to Stipulations
Understanding the psychological dynamics at play can help predict people's responses to new regulations and guide policymakers in their implementation. According to Armin Granulo, study leader, these dynamics revolve around how people react to change, particularly in the context of smoking bans, speed limits, and other restrictive measures.
Granulo and his team delved into the attitudes of various populations regarding these regulations through representative surveys across Europe, seatbelt usage in the USA, and speed limit adjustments in the Netherlands. They also conducted experiments to gauge the public's reactions to political regulations, such as mandatory vaccinations, speed limits, and taxes on alcohol and meat, in the UK and Germany.
The studies revealed a striking pattern: people are significantly more likely to reject restrictive measures before they come into effect, but this resistance lessens following implementation. This trend holds true regardless of an individual's overall attitude towards a particular issue, like vaccinations.
So why is this resistance less stable than politicians may fear?
The secret lies in the way our minds process change. When faced with a new rule, we initially zero in on the changes themselves, focusing on perceived losses such as freedom or comfort. This initial focus on losses leads to resistance, as explained by psychologist Robert Böhm.
However, once the new rule is in place, our thoughts shift towards the benefits the measure brings to society, such as health improvements or environmental protection. As Böhm points out, these societal gains become more prominent, intensifying acceptance.
Let's break it down:
- Smoke Ban
- Speed Limit
- Rejection
- University of Vienna
- Technical University of Munich
- USA
- Netherlands
Mechanisms at Play
Reactance Theory
Reactance is a psychological phenomenon in which individuals resist changes that seem threatening to their personal freedoms. Before the introduction of new rules, there's a strong focus on what will be lost—freedom or habitual behavior. After the implementation, these personal losses recede, and the advantages for society, like health benefits or reduced carbon emissions, become more apparent, decreasing reactance and increasing acceptance.
Social Judgment Theory
Individuals have latitudes of acceptance and rejection towards various issues, the range of attitudes from the most acceptable to the least acceptable. Before implementation, people may reject measures within their latitude of rejection, especially when viewed as overly restrictive. After implementation, their latitudes of acceptance tend to expand, leading to greater acceptance of the rules.
Change Over Time
Before introduction: stronger emphasis on personal freedom, resulting in increased reactance and resistance.After implementation: a shift towards recognizing societal benefits, reduced reactance, and increased acceptance.
Crafting the Message
Promoting societal benefits before implementing new rules can minimize initial resistance. Emphasizing public health or environmental improvements can foster increased acceptance after implementation.
By understanding these psychological factors, policymakers can create more effective strategies for introducing new rules and navigate the sometimes choppy waters of public opinion.
- In his study, Armin Granulo analyzed various populations' attitudes towards community policies such as smoking bans and speed limits, conducting surveys in Europe, seatbelt usage in the USA, and speed limit adjustments in the Netherlands.
- The scientists at the University of Vienna and the Technical University of Munich found that people tend to reject restrictive measures before they're implemented, but this resistance decreases following enforcement, even regarding issues like mandatory vaccinations.
- Psychologist Robert Böhm's research supports the findings, revealing that our minds initially focus on perceived losses when faced with new regulations, but once implemented, societal benefits become more prominent, amplifying acceptance.
- In debates over vaccination policies, it's essential to emphasize the health benefits for the population to decrease resistance and increase acceptance once the regulations are enforced.
- As the implementation of new regulations is determined, policymakers should consider leveraging the mechanisms of reactance theory and social judgment theory to promote societal benefits and craft messages that minimize initial resistance and increase acceptance over time.
